Patrick Gower interviews John Key

New 3News Reid
Research poll shows opposition to National deal with
Conservatives: 60% say no and only 22% say yes. National
voters: 31% say yes and 49% say no.

Does Key want a deal:
"I truthfully can’t answer that question. I can say
there’s merits for both sides of the argument".

John Key
fails to name one good thing Colin Craig has done this
year.

Insists National still hasn't decided whether to do
a deal in East Coast Bays or Epsom.

Key refuses to match
Labour's promised spending on health and education: "...the
absolute amount of expenditure we’ve had in health and
education has been more than sufficient over the course of
the last six years".

John Key promises to see out a third
term, should he win in September and guarantees not to hand
over to a successor.

Says "there's every chance we don't
win" the election and he gets "very worried" about
losing.

On Donghua Liu: "This isn’t something that
we’ve set up, this isn’t something we’ve orchestrated
in so much that if they have engagement with Donghua Liu,
they had him as a donor and he gave them money then that’s
a matter between them."

Patrick Gower
started the interview by asking, given the level of
opposition, does he really want a deal with Colin
Craig?

John Key: First thing I’d say is we
want to be the government post 2014 election. And I think
New Zealanders do understand that involves doing deals or
accommodations and actually cobbling together 61 seats. So
in terms of will we specifically outline a deal with the
Conservatives or United or Act, well we’ll announce that
in a few weeks’ time you know, some grace
time.

Patrick Gower: So yes or no to the
question. Do you want a deal with Colin Craig, yes or no?
Because even your own voters, one in every two National
voters does not want a deal with Colin
Craig.

Key: Well I truthfully can’t answer
that question. I can say there’s merits for both sides of
the argument and we’ll take it through a process which
will obviously include the president and the sort of kitchen
cabinet. And we’ll do that relatively soon. But I can’t
be absolutely sure of a definitive answer, I don’t want to
mislead you but – but what I can say is realistic enough
to know despite the fact that we are polling well a lot can
change in an election campaign and we are likely to have to
do a coalition deal.

Let’s look at it this
way then. Colin Craig, tell me one good thing that he’s
done this year?

Well I don’t want to
critique his performance because that’s just simply not my
job.

No, but it’s not a critique it’s,
what’s one good thing you’ve seen him
do?

Well not so sure that’s really the
answer that I need to look for I mean the answer is
–

But it is if you want to do a deal with him
you’ve got to be able to say this is - here’s something
good that he’s done.

Well he has a
legitimate voice for some New Zealanders. It might be a
position that’s quite a far away from me when it comes to
social issues but there are plenty of New Zealanders that
would support his view on smacking or gay marriage or
whatever it might be. It’s not where I’m at personally
but I understand that position.

But you can’t
actually name something that you’ve seen and then you’ve
gone ‘hey that’s pretty good’.

I
don’t follow everything he does but what I’m saying to
you is that we live in a world where we have to put together
61 seats. Realistically could we work with him if we go into
Parliament? Let’s just argue, he either wins a seat or he
gets 5%, the answer is yes I think we could because we’ve
worked with lots of other different parties as
well.

Yeah but I just want to pick up on that
because it’s just about numbers isn’t it. It’s just
about whether he can help you win, it’s not about Colin
Craig’s character, it’s not about what the Conservatives
can do for New Zealand, it’s about whether they can help
you win.

But that’s true of every major
political party. In the end whether you’re Labour or
whether you’re National, you’ve got to work out how you
get that race of 61 seats. Now in putting together those
groups you have to answer the obvious question, do we have
enough in common or do we believe we’re malleable enough
to actually work together for the betterment of New Zealand.
Because the other alternative is everybody gets stubborn and
we say oh no, we don’t have 50-percent so guess what
we’re going back for another election. Well New Zealanders
don’t want that, that’s for sure. There’s a couple of
problems in doing that.

But there’s a
difference. The difference with Colin Craig though is he
will only get into Parliament with your say-so. There is no
other way he will make it. You decide whether he lives or
dies.

Well the way you can make that case but
you can’t be absolutely sure of that. I mean he’s
sitting at 2.8-percent in your poll. Now I accept he’s in
a range of different polls, he’s a range of different
levels.

He has never got anywhere near
5.

No.

So he survives, he gets
into Parliament whether you decide or not part of the
difference with him.

I’m one hundred
percent not sure you can make that case at this point. I
mean I accept certainly if we helped him that’s definitely
beneficial to -

What’s right about that?
About you helping him and he gets in, what is the good part
about that for voters?

Well taking the first
point though, if you go back to the 2002 campaign you did
see a situation where both United, Act and New Zealand First
considerably lifted their vote in the campaign. And you’ve
seen it actually in other campaigns, in New Zealand First in
the 2011 campaign. So I don’t think you can coherently say
there’s just no chance that he can get there without any
support from us. From our point of view if you go to
National voters and you say ok here’s the alternative,
National can put together a government that works in
accommodation with some other political parties. Or the
alternative is New Zealand is governed by Labour and the
Greens and New Zealand first and Mana-Internet and maybe
other political parties. Do you want that? I think the bulk
of people will want to see National as the government,
we’d crudely say they’d expect me to find accommodations
to put together something that’s a stable government. Now
there’s obviously flexibility within all of that and I’m
not arguing these decisions are easy. But I am making the
case though that I think it’s far better that we’re
transparent with New Zealanders and up front. And I think if
you look at that, New Zealanders want that
actually.

Well let’s pick up on that
transparency because look at what’s happening at Epsom.
Paul Goldsmith is not campaigning, Paul Goldsmith is not
looking or anything other than the party vote, the Act party
thinks there’s a deal on, I know there’s a deal on, you
know there’s a deal on but you won’t say
it.

Well again, we haven’t, we’ve never
sat down and actually had the conversation with the group of
people.

But there will be a deal there, won’t
there?

There could be and we’ll
see.

So where is the transparency, why don’t
you just say?

Because the election is going
to be held on September the 20th and National is the only
political party I can see that’s actually in front of
voters saying we’ll give you clarity, we already have in
terms of who we can work with and we’ll give you absolute
clarity on those things.

You’re saying it,
but you’re not doing it.

Yeah I know, but
we’re not doing it today because this is your timetable
and with the greatest respect we’re twelve weeks out from
an election and you might want me to unwrap that present for
you today on The Nation but I’m not in a position to do
that. But that doesn’t mean -

But the present
is unwrapped.

But it’s not unwrapped.
Because if it was you’d already be able to answer those
questions and you can’t. That’s why you’re asking me
that. And I can’t explain it, not because I can’t be
difficult-I’m trying to be difficult about it - but
because we have not made those decisions yet. But the
decision we have made is that we will be absolutely clear
with people and we’ll do that in some time well and truly
before the campaign. And when we do that, mark my words, we
will be the only political party that will be saying this is
who we can work with and if there are accommodations there
are the ones that we think make sense from our perspective.
No one else will give you that straight answer. New Zealand
First won’t give you that, David Cunliffe certainly
won’t give you that. So in a way I think we have the moral
high ground here because we are prepared to be transparent.

On those other deals. Let’s look at Hone
Harawira and Kim Dotcom. What is the difference, if any,
between the deal they are doing and the deals that you
do?

Can you pick up on any
difference?

Ah, I mean I could critique, you
know, whether they can naturally fit together or the merits
of a guy that’s fundamentally funding a political campaign
for his own personal self-interest.

But in
terms of that electorate deal is there any difference really
between your arrangements and their
arrangements?

Theirs is a little different,
in so much that they’re actually looking like their going
to form a party and split apart, so it is a bit of a rort
through the system. At the end of the day we haven’t
criticised that. We’ve – you know – we’ve accepted
-

That’s what I’m saying, you don’t
criticise that deal do you.

We’ve actually
accepted the fact that -

Because you
can’t-

Well it’s not that we can’t.
It’s – I’ll just come back to the main point. You know
I’ve given a lot of thought to this issue and I’ve been
involved in leading National into a number of campaigns now
and there’s been all sorts of variations or sending
signals to voters and we’ve become more refined and have a
better understanding. What New Zealander voters definitely
do understand now though is the only vote that matters is
the party vote. And if they want to see National in the
government, in the end, the surest way of that in the end is
getting 50-percent.

Sure. I want to look
quickly know at Donghua Liu. You threw it out there and
I’ll quote you, what you told us over the United Nations,
the donation could be $15-thousand, $30-thousand or hundreds
of thousands.

Agree.

That was
wrong what you said, proven to be wrong; you obviously had
some idea of what was coming out in the statement. What was
your intention of throwing out that number?

I
don’t know it has been proven to be wrong
-

The over 100-thousand has by Donghua Liu
himself. What was your intention in essentially spreading
the rumour?

Well what I’d heard was that
there was a donation, and I’d heard that the donation was
more than 15-thousand.

Well what were you
trying to do by putting that out there?

Well
I think from memory, because you have to go back, you guys
asked me questions about the donation.

This was
a question about the letter; sorry I’m just asking not, I
don’t want to go back again.

I was simply
making the point that what I’d heard was that there was a
donation that was made and that the donation was larger than
15-thousand. That’s proven to be correct.

Do
you feel It’s wrong though for a prime minister to be
spreading rumours? That’s where I’m going
here.

Well if you guys are prepared to go on,
going forward, not ask me questions I’m more than happy
not to give you answers. In the end this is a situation
between Labour and Donghua Liu. This isn’t something that
we’ve set up, this isn’t something we’ve orchestrated
in so much that if they have engagement with Donghua Liu,
they had him as a donor and he gave them money then that’s
a matter between them.

I want to move quickly
now to John Roughan’s book which is just out, I’ve had a
read of it. In this business that we’ve been talking about
that when you felt like quitting, that you don’t like
losing, in that context in that you felt like that in the
second term, can you guarantee voters that you will see out
a third term?

Yes, but I mean I think it’s
important -

You can also guarantee you won’t
hand over to anyone during that third
term?

Correct, but if you go back to the
second term, you know, and the statements in the book, I
think it’s worth putting a bit of context around that
which was Bronagh and I, over that Christmas holiday had a
legitimate conversation about whether we were committed to a
third term. And actually if, you can make the case if I
should or shouldn’t say those sorts of things, I’ve been
a pretty open sort of Prime Minister. But it’s not logical
is it, really, for a political household like ours where the
expectations on Bronagh and our family are that they make
considerable concessions for me to be in my job, for us not
actually as a couple to sit down and say are we committed to
another three years of this?

So what does that
mean, in that fourth term, are you going to stand for that
fourth term if you are going to go all the way through and
not handover?

Well I might do and I’d
probably like to but my point is that -

Because
there’s no way of doing that isn’t there without handing
over, you’re basically saying the fourth term is on, if I
get the third.

Correct. But the point is
you’ve got to get the third. And this is where everybody
gets a bit ahead of themselves because in reality we’ve
got to win that third term. And I know the polls look strong
for us. And I know on the 3 Reid Research poll we’ll be
able to govern alone and I’m really personally desperately
hope that’s what election night looks like. But you and I
both know it’ll probably be tighter than that and
there’s every chance that we don’t win. And so you know
– I just get very worried. It’d be like the All Blacks
saying well I’m worried about the 2015 World Cup by the
way I’m worried about the 2019 one, winning that one was
well. Your headspace is in completely the wrong place if you
start adopting that viewpoint.

Looking very
quickly at a couple of other things, your mother as we see
in the book and we know the story, three times essentially
she restarted her life, first as a refugee, then with your
father and then of course leaving him, is that something
you’ve inherited the ability to make the tough decision
and then go on with it without looking back. Do
you-

Well I’m very, I think naturally as a
disposition, I’ve got quite a happy disposition and I am
good at looking forward. It doesn’t mean that I don’t
ever want to look back but my mother certainly taught me
that a, you get out of life what you put into it so if you
work hard that will help you know in the results you get,
but secondly whatever decisions you make, make the best ones
you can. But in the end you can’t dwell in the past.
I’ve made mistakes. Look, I’ve made mistakes in politics
and I’ve made plenty of mistakes in life. But in the end
all I’ve tried to do is learn from those
mistakes.

Looking forward then to the potential
for a third term, what’s the agenda, most in particular
where do tax cuts fit into your agenda if you get that third
term?

Well again, we haven’t made that
decision yet, but what we have done is given ourselves the
room for potentially tax cuts if we want to, and you saw
that in Budget 2014, with the Budget documents quite clearly
say the headroom if you like, the capacity to spend money or
return it to New Zealanders has lifted from that base of
about a billion dollars to 1.5-billion. Now there are
pressures on that and I know from doing a lot of tax cut
packages in the past, you actually need quite a lot of
money. So our risk is that we do tax cuts and people
perceive them to be not enough, on the other side of the
coin we as a political party desperately believe in people
being able to get ahead under their own steam, returning
money and having the right incentives in the tax
system.

Sure, so I’ll pick up on that because
health and education for instance, Labour this week promised
a billion dollars a year to spending at pace with inflation.
You’re saying there that you could match
that?

No what I’m saying is we make our own
-

So yes or no, can you keep the real spending
on health and education there?

Well my view
is the absolute amount of expenditure we’ve had in health
and education has been more than sufficient over the course
of the last six years. What Labour demonstrated in office
was that they were great at spending money and actually not
great at getting results from it.

So can you
promise that spending in real terms in health and education
won’t drop?

Well that’s not the way I’m
looking at it. What I’m looking at is results. I’m not
going to bother engaging in something I don’t think is the
realistic argument because if you go and have a look at
elective surgical operations, hips and knees, under us in
2014 160-thousand of those operations will be undertaken in
2008 there was 120-thousand. So we’ve got a lot more
efficiency out of the system and that is the problem with
Labour. They want to tax you more, you’ve already seen
that, capital gains tax and raising top personal rate, they
want to spend more of your money which they’ll spend in
inefficiently. And in the end will you get more for it and a
better quality result, well history tells you, you
don’t.

Final question, what’s the
unfinished business if you get another go, what’s the
unfinished business?

Ah, there are lots of
things. I think firstly I think locking in that growth,
locking in that international engagement. I think New
Zealand is doing well with being a multi cultural fully
engaged country. I think education reform is critically
important. There’s more infrastructure that we need to
build. The last thing I suppose is in the end, 2015 onwards
I want to run the campaign of changing the
flag.

"In making the decision, the Police executive has considered almost five years worth of 'use of force' data… It consistently shows that the Taser is one of the least injury-causing tactical options available when compared with other options, with a subject injury rate of just over one per cent for all deployments." More>>

Even an SOE that exists to fulfil a public function neglected by the market or which is a natural monopoly would nevertheless be forced to act "on the basis of commercial considerations" and would be prohibited from discriminating in favour of local businesses in purchases and sales. Foreign companies would be given standing to sue SOEs in domestic courts for perceived departures from the strictures of the TPP... More>>

Labour has listened to the families of whose loved ones have been killed at work and calls on other political parties to back its proposals to make workplaces safer and prevent unnecessary deaths on the job. More>>

As we learned yesterday, the reviews propose that the democratically elected representation on DHBs should be reduced, such that community wishes will be able to be over-ridden by political appointees. In today’s revelations, the reviews also propose a return to the destructive competitive health model of the 1990s. More>>